[This message was posted by Ryan Pierce (FPL Technical Director) of FIX Protocol Ltd. <[email protected]> to the "General Q/A" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/22. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/7cc789d6 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Thanks for the comments. I don't have all that much of an opinion on the first question. Regarding the second, though: > Second question is related to the message name which are quite long. > Similar messages for securities do not have the term "Detail" in their > name, i.e. SecurityListRequest and SecurityList (does not even have > "Report"). I find it obvious that a message contains details about the > entity it describes. On the other hand, the term "List" is important > here as it can be more than a single party per message. > > Second question is if we can omit the term "Detail" as follows: > PartyDetailsListRequest --> PartyListRequest PartyDetailsListReport --> > PartyListReport We already have a "Parties" component, which is a list of parties. That is just a bare-bones list. No context IDs, alt IDs, or other info like risk limits. We created a PartyDetail block that provides such detailed information about the party. Since what we're exchanging is this detailed information, and not merely a simple list of parties, we chose the names PartyDetailsListRequest and PartyDetailsListReport. [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[email protected]] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FIX-Protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
